Every breach that can cost you 30 days, 90 days, or the licence itself — mapped to the paperwork that prevents it.
Asiannabis Community | Cannabis Business and Industry | Licensing and Compliance | Last verified: 1 August 2026
Why this guide exists
In June 2026 the Department of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine issued a formal administrative guideline telling its own inspectors exactly when to suspend a licence and when to revoke it. Before that, enforcement varied by province and by officer. Now it does not.
The guideline covers every holder of a licence to research, export, sell, or process controlled herbs for commercial purposes. It operates under Section 52 of the Protection and Promotion of Thai Traditional Medicine Knowledge Act B.E. 2542, on top of the Ministry of Public Health Notification on Controlled Herbs (Cannabis) B.E. 2568.
This is the part most operators underestimate. The criminal fine for advertising is 20,000 baht. A 90 day suspension in peak season is a different order of loss, and revocation is the end.
The three forms that decide your fate
| Form | Thai | What it is | Who holds it |
|---|---|---|---|
| PT 27 | ภ.ท.27 | Movement and stock record for controlled herbs | Your premises, available for inspection |
| PT 28 | ภ.ท.28 | Periodic report filed with the registrar | Registrar, on schedule |
| PT 33 | ภ.ท.33 | Prescription issued by a licensed practitioner | One per retail sale of flower |
Most enforcement action starts with these three forms. An inspector who walks in and cannot see a complete PT 27, or who finds sales without matching PT 33 records, has everything needed to open a file.
Keep the paperwork reconciled weekly, not monthly. A stock record that does not match the shelf is the fastest route to a false reporting finding — and false reporting is a revocation trigger, not a suspension trigger.
Suspension for 30 days
Any one of these is enough:
- Reports not prepared. PT 27 and PT 28 not created, or created but incomplete, or not kept at the premises for inspection.
- Reports not submitted. Failure to file with the registrar.
- Standards failure. Selling or exporting controlled herbs that are not certified to Good Agricultural and Collection Practices, or to a standard equivalent or higher.
- Licence not visible. Not displayed openly at the premises, or you cannot produce it electronically when an inspector asks.
- Commercial advertising of controlled herbs.
Read that last line carefully. Advertising sits in the same tier as failing to file your reports. A single public price post is enough.
Suspension for 90 days
- Export details not notified to the licensor.
- Selling cannabis without a PT 33 prescription issued by a licensed practitioner.
Suspension periods are added together across all breaches found in one inspection, and capped at 90 days for a single order.
Immediate revocation
There is no warning tier for these. The guideline directs revocation on the first finding:
- False PT 27 or PT 28 reports.
- Sale without a PT 33 prescription to a protected group — anyone under 20, school or university students, pregnant women, breastfeeding women.
- On-site consumption. Allowing customers to smoke cannabis at the premises.
- Vending machines or automated dispensers.
- Online sales — through websites, electronic media, or any computer network. Messaging apps and forums are computer networks.
- Sale at a prohibited location — temple, dormitory, or public park.
And separately: a second breach of the same provision after a suspension results in immediate revocation. The guideline is explicit about repeat conduct. Fix the root cause during a suspension, not just the symptom.
Reporting indicates a waiting period of around two years before a revoked operator may reapply. Treat a revocation as terminal for the entity and for the named responsible person.
Criminal exposure, running in parallel
Administrative action does not replace prosecution. It sits alongside it.
| Conduct | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Advertising controlled herbs, online sales, or sale without prescription | Up to 1 year imprisonment and/or 20,000 baht |
| Advertising cannabis food products | Up to 3 years imprisonment and/or 30,000 baht |
| Advertising cannabis herbal supplements or cosmetics | Up to 1 year imprisonment and/or 100,000 baht |
| False reporting or document forgery | Up to 3 years imprisonment or 60,000 baht |
Cross-border movement of flower without customs clearance is handled under the Customs Act, not the herb framework, and the exposure there is substantially higher. If you are exporting, get the customs position confirmed by a Thai lawyer in writing rather than relying on forum guidance, including this post.
Where the extracts rule now sits
Since 26 April 2026, cannabis and hemp extracts above 0.2 percent tetrahydrocannabinol are Category 5 narcotics under a separate ministerial regulation, published 26 March 2026. That is a different licence, a different regulator posture, and different penalties.
Flower stays under the controlled herb framework, tightened by Ministerial Regulation No. 2 B.E. 2569, published 30 April 2026.
If your business touches both, you need both compliance systems. Operators who assumed one licence covered extracts have been the ones caught out.
A compliance routine that survives an inspection
Weekly
- Reconcile PT 27 against physical stock. Investigate any variance the same week.
- Confirm every retail sale of flower has a matching PT 33 on file.
- Review anything your business published publicly in the last seven days against the advertising ban.
Monthly
- File PT 28 on schedule. File it even if the month was quiet.
- Confirm your Good Agricultural and Collection Practices certificates and your suppliers’ certificates are current.
Quarterly
- Walk your own premises as an inspector would. Is the licence displayed? Is there a menu board visible from the street? Is there anywhere a customer could consume on site?
- Audit your public footprint: website, social profiles, map listings, directory entries, forum posts.
Always
- Face to face, on licensed premises, prescription in hand. No exceptions, no favours for regulars, no deliveries.
What this means for how you post here
Asiannabis is a computer network. A sale concluded in a topic or a private message on this forum is an online sale, and an online sale is a revocation trigger.
You can discuss licensing, compliance, standards, export process, laboratory work, and regulatory interpretation freely — that is what this category is for. You cannot use it to move product.
We run automated compliance scanning across the forum and flag posts that read as sales or advertising. If your post is edited, it is because the alternative is worse for you.
The administrative process from first finding to final decision
Understanding the timeline between an inspection finding and a penalty decision helps operators respond rather than react. The DTAM process for most violations follows a structured sequence.
When an inspector documents a finding during a site visit, they issue a formal notice (หนังสือแจ้ง) within 15 working days of the inspection. This notice specifies the violation, the applicable rule, and the window for the licensee to submit a written response or corrective documentation. The response window is typically 15 days but can be extended once on written request.
If the response is deemed insufficient or no response is submitted, the committee convenes within 30 working days to issue a formal order (คำสั่ง). For first-time violations in the 30-day suspension category, the committee may accept undertakings in lieu of suspension—written commitments to specific corrective actions with a compliance deadline. This mechanism is not available for 90-day suspension triggers or revocation cases.
The order is delivered by registered mail to the address on the licence. It becomes effective five days after confirmed delivery unless the licensee files an appeal (อุทธรณ์) with the Ministry of Public Health within 30 days of receiving the order. Filing an appeal does not automatically stay the suspension; the licensee must separately request a stay, which the Ministry may grant or deny at its discretion.
Appeals: what works and what does not
Appeals against suspension or revocation orders succeed primarily on procedural grounds—where the inspector lacked authority, the notice was defective, or the procedure was not followed—rather than on substantive grounds of proportionality. Thai administrative courts have historically deferred to the Ministry’s technical judgement on what constitutes a violation of health-related licensing conditions.
Grounds that have supported successful appeals in analogous cases under health licensing law: the inspection was conducted without proper identification or appointment (where required), the finding was based on a document that was later shown to have been forged by a third party, or the licensee was not given the legally required opportunity to submit a response before the order was issued.
Grounds that rarely succeed: “I didn’t know about the rule,” “the violation was minor,” “we have corrected the problem.” These are mitigation factors relevant to penalty reduction in criminal proceedings, not grounds for reversing an administrative order once properly issued.
Practical use of the appeal window: even in cases where the appeal is unlikely to succeed on the merits, filing an appeal with a request for a stay gives the operator 30 to 60 additional days to address underlying compliance gaps before the suspension takes practical effect. This window should be used for exactly that purpose, not as a delay tactic alone.
Second offences and escalating penalties
The Ministerial Regulation No. 2 B.E. 2569 does not specify automatic escalation from suspension to revocation on second offence—the committee retains discretion. However, in practice, a second violation of the same type within 24 months is treated as evidence of systemic non-compliance rather than isolated error. The committee is explicitly required to take prior violations into account in its deliberations.
Documented patterns that increase the probability of revocation on second offence: repeat violation of the credential requirement (operating without a qualified traditional medicine practitioner on duty), repeat failure to maintain the closed-premises requirement, and any violation of the advertising prohibition after a prior warning.
A “caution” (คำเตือน) issued without a formal suspension order still counts as a prior record in the committee’s deliberations. Operators sometimes treat a caution as a non-event. It is not—it is the first entry in an official compliance record that will be reviewed if a formal violation is later found.
What happens to stock and patients during a suspension
A 30-day or 90-day suspension means the licence is suspended; it does not mean the business premises must close. Staff can continue to be present. But dispensing cannabis flower under PT 33 prescriptions must stop completely for the duration of the suspension. Accepting a PT 33 prescription during a suspension period is itself a criminal violation under the Controlled Herbs Notification.
Stock held on the premises during suspension remains legal to possess. It cannot be sold, transferred to another location, or destroyed without DTAM’s written approval. Operators who attempt to transfer stock to an unlicensed location during suspension have committed a more serious offence than the underlying violation that caused the suspension.
Patients who relied on the dispensary for PT 33 supply must be directed to another licensed facility. DTAM does not arrange this referral—it is the operator’s obligation to communicate the situation to patients in a way that does not violate the advertising prohibition (no public announcement naming the suspension reason is required; a private notice to existing patients is permitted).
Planning for operational and financial continuity
The costs of a suspension extend beyond the direct revenue loss from not selling for 30 or 90 days.
Lease obligations continue during suspension. A lease that cannot be exited on 30 days’ notice represents fixed cost with zero revenue. Operators in new premises with long lease terms should negotiate suspension clauses into lease agreements at signing—this is unusual but not unprecedented for businesses in regulated industries.
Staff costs present a more complex problem. The DTAM-qualified staff must remain on the payroll or risk losing the credential coverage needed to reopen after suspension. Other staff face a different calculation. Operators who have over-hired relative to the revenue profile of a single-location dispensary will find that a 90-day suspension causes permanent damage to the team they have built.
Banking relationships: Thai commercial banks have become cautious about cannabis-related business accounts. A public suspension order—which is an administrative document and in principle accessible—may trigger a bank’s own compliance review of the account relationship. This is not widely publicised but has been reported by operators following the April 2026 regulatory tightening.
What operators can do to reduce risk before a formal finding is issued
The gap between a compliance problem existing and an inspector finding it is where proactive operators create the most value. An unannounced inspection does not happen on a fixed cycle—complaints from the public, signals from licence renewal documentation, or routine area sweeps can all trigger a visit. The practical implication is that compliance must be maintained continuously, not prepared for at inspection time.
Three areas where self-audit has prevented formal findings in similar regulatory environments:
Credential verification: The most common 30-day suspension trigger—operating without a qualified Thai traditional medicine practitioner on duty—is also the easiest to verify in advance. A monthly check that current staff credentials are valid, have not expired, and are physically present in the dispensary takes 20 minutes. A practitioner whose certificate lapsed three months ago but continues to work daily is creating a suspension-level violation that an inspection will find immediately.
Premises integrity: The closed-premises requirement fails gradually. A door propped open for deliveries, a back window left unlocked for airflow, a customer who insists on seeing the stock room. Document a weekly premises walkthrough with photographs timestamped and stored. If an inspector later claims the premises were not controlled on a given date, the photographic log is evidence of routine compliance.
Document completeness: Licence, practitioner credential, stock records, PT 33 prescription log—all must be on-premises, current, and immediately producible during an inspection. A missing document that would otherwise be found compliant results in a provisional finding that the document does not exist, because the inspector cannot verify what is not shown. “It’s at head office” is not an acceptable response to an inspector asking for a stock ledger.
The difference between criminal and administrative tracks—and why both can run at once
A common misconception among operators is that receiving an administrative suspension order means the matter is “handled” at the administrative level and criminal exposure has been resolved. This is incorrect.
Administrative proceedings under the Ministerial Regulations and criminal proceedings under the Narcotics Act or the Protection and Promotion of Thai Traditional Medicine Knowledge Act B.E. 2542 are parallel tracks. An administrative finding of a violation triggers neither immunity from criminal prosecution nor a presumption of guilt in criminal proceedings. They are independent.
In practice, administrative findings from DTAM are shared with the Office of the Narcotics Control Board and the Royal Thai Police for cases that may have criminal dimensions. For most routine compliance violations—missing credential, premises issue, documentation gap—criminal referral does not follow. For advertising violations involving online sales to recreational users, or for unlicensed sale of extracts above the THC threshold, criminal referral is routine.
Operators who have received an administrative suspension and resolved it through the compliance process should nonetheless consult a Thai lawyer about whether any act underlying the violation also created criminal exposure, before the administrative proceeding is closed. The two-year limitation period on criminal complaints under Thai law means that the window does not close with the administrative proceeding.
After revocation: what cannot be recovered
A revocation order under Ministerial Regulation No. 2 B.E. 2569 terminates the licence permanently for the named entity. The revoked entity cannot apply for a new licence. The location may potentially receive a new licence under a different legal entity, but this requires the new entity to have no continuity of management or ownership with the revoked entity—a high standard that in practice means the location must change management entirely, not be re-registered under a spouse’s name or a holding company.
Staff who were employed by a revoked dispensary and who are themselves qualified practitioners can transfer their credentials and employment to another licensed dispensary without restriction—credentials are personal, not entity-bound. This means the human capital of a revoked operation is not permanently destroyed, even though the licence itself is.
Summary: the practical risk hierarchy
Not all violations carry the same real-world consequence. Operators with limited compliance budgets should prioritise in this order, from highest to lowest immediate risk:
Immediate revocation risk: selling cannabis products to minors, selling without a licence, transferring stock to an unlicensed location, or failing to comply with a prior suspension order. These are not administrative oversights—they are the acts DTAM treats as grounds for ending a licence permanently.
90-day suspension risk: operating flower sales without a licensed Thai traditional medicine practitioner on-site, failure to prevent public access to stock areas after two prior warnings, and repeated violations of the closed-premises requirement. These risks compound: a 90-day suspension during the peak tourist months is an existential threat to a single-location operation.
30-day suspension risk: documentation gaps, signage violations, single-instance advertising infractions, and first-time stock record deficiencies. Addressable through proactive compliance without requiring structural changes to the business.
Warning and notice risk: minor documentation deficiencies, isolated staff errors in customer communication, single post that crosses the advertising line without systematic intent. Serious as records, but manageable if the underlying behaviour is corrected immediately.
Sources (Final)
- Protection and Promotion of Thai Traditional Medicine Knowledge Act B.E. 2542, Section 52
- Ministry of Public Health Notification on Controlled Herbs (Cannabis) B.E. 2568 — Royal Gazette, 26 June 2025
- Ministerial Regulation on Category 5 Narcotics, cannabis and hemp extracts, B.E. 2569 — in force 26 April 2026
- Ministerial Regulation No. 2 B.E. 2569 on licensing for controlled herbs — published 30 April 2026
- Administrative Court Act B.E. 2542, applicable provisions on appeals of administrative orders
- Department of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine. (2026). Administrative Guidelines for Suspension, Revocation and Appeals. Bangkok: DTAM.
- Narcotics Act B.E. 2522, as amended — relevant provisions for Category 5 reclassification.
- Office of the Narcotics Control Board. (2026). Coordination Protocol between Administrative and Criminal Proceedings for Controlled Herbs. Bangkok: ONCB (unverified — confirm current protocol with legal counsel).
General information, not legal advice. Confirm your own position with a licensed Thai lawyer before acting.